IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation;

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation;

RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation; document-formats

From: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Date: Sun Mar 11 2001 - 02:45:16 EST

  • Next message: MAEDA toru: "RE: IFX> RE: Fax processing confirmation"

    > In general, I think it would be a good idea to register some standard MIME
    > Media Type "version" parameters. (Parameters are modifiers of the media
    > subtype.)

    This has to be done as part of the registration of the media type itself.
    You cannot register a parameter separately; there is no process for it.

    > Some RFCs mention this possibility; for example, in RFC 2045:

    > In particular, some formats (such as application/postscript) have
    > version numbering conventions that are internal to the media format.
    > Where such conventions exist, MIME does nothing to supersede them. Where
    > no such conventions exist, a MIME media type might use a "version"
    > parameter in the content-type field if necessary.

    Correct, and several media types have been registered that have such

    > I'm thinking of all the versions of PCL, for example: a particular Printer
    > may support some subset of existing PCL versions.

    The current registration of PCL, application/vnd.hp-pcl, doesn't have such a
    parameter. The current change controller for this media type is HP; I suggest
    contacting someone there if you want to amend the registration and add
    such a parameter.

    > Here is a made-up example of a MIME content type field using the version
    > paramater:

    > Content-type: text/line-data; charset=ibm500 (EBCDIC 500V1);
    > version=ibm3800

    Of course if you're registering such a media type yourself you can simply have
    such a parameter as part of your registration. Make sure you completely specify
    the syntax of the parameter value.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 11 2001 - 02:51:19 EST